Employment disciplinary

RA, thank you so much for your input which is really interesting.  I'm sorry you had to go through that experience 10 years ago and that you are better now.  Your writing indicates that you still feel pretty raw.  My poor husband will have to sit through an Appeal hearing on Monday and relive his own bad experiences whilst being grilled by an Appeal Chairman.  Fortunately we have secured the services of an excellent HR Consultant who will be representing him. My husband's Clinical Psycholgist has written a strong letter outlining the effect of autism on his day to day living.  We are very much hoping we will not have to go the legal route to an Employment Tribunal. We will report back as to how it goes.  Wish us luck!

Blunder,

Okay, I'll admit I've never had a diagnosis.  However, I have specific symptoms- as does my son.  I've always fitted the atypical mould, given that I lack certain social skills and an ability to function as part of the team.

With that out of the way, I went through something very similar 10 years ago, with the stress of a disiplinary leading to me being diagnosed with depression, a 3 month absence and handing in my notice.  

Whilst my situation was not as serious, my immediate thoughts are that the dismissal was:

1) unfair, in that it did not take into account prior existing medical conditions or reflect on the pre-existing stress- a 5 month window between a diagnosis of Stress and Dismissal is quite evident in itself.  However, the pre-existing condition is one that I hope was communicated to HR, as was the work related stress and (I assume) absence from work, with the obligatory "back to work" interview.

2) Were the condition reported to HR, my second thought would be that of discrimination in that his pre-existing condition was not taken into account by line managers and HR failed to ensure sufficient checks when issuing workload to your husband.

Whilst the tribunual is an opportunity for both parties to "air" their greivences, I suspect- from your brief outline of the events- that facts, timelines and supporting evidence (emails etc) would be beneficial.  Natually, the same goes for medical information.

However, in reviewing ROSPA and ACAS guidelines, I would suggest the following:

Employer will go for fair dismissal on the grounds of "Employees conduct" and potentially "Employees Capability".  Both are reasonable but the grounds for such suppositions can be argued in that the given workload was unjust and was in itself a pre-cursor leading to the former argument.  The latter, whilst a pre-existing condition, can be argued on medical grounds and reinforced through pre-existing evidence of work etc (ie before the occurences, he was dilligent and his work of a suitable standard).  Sorry for the analytical and somewhat "clinical" approach but it's my "black and white" way of approaching things.  

Just remember, the law is quite literally blind.  Don't expect to see "pity" on the grounds of a pre-existing condition.  The Tribunual will require evidence that the excessive workload exceeded that expected of your husband as part of his contract of employment and it's important to make sure that has no bearing on his pre-existing condition. ie- he's just as capable as the next worker but the stress induced workload was not taken into account upon his return before the wrong decissions occurred.

Either way, he's going to be blaming himself and will probably feel pretty [language removed by moderator] .  Thing is, he's not to blame and wouldn't have made the mistakes if the workload had been properly managed.  That's the conclusion I finally drew in my case (Only Structural Engineer working for a group of 30 surveyors, dealing with all their designs)- so I know what he's been through!

[Edited by Heather- moderator- please note the community guidelines request you refrain from swearing. http://community.autism.org.uk/rules/commentingtips ]